Supreme Court voids California union law
Court Alerts
In a defeat for the union movement, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a first-in-the-nation law adopted in California that would have barred companies from speaking out against unions if they received state funds.
The justices in a 7-2 decision said the state measure conflicts with the free-speech zone created by federal labor law.
The ruling is likely to benefit especially companies in the healthcare industries, such as nursing homes, that receive some state funds and have low-level employees who are not unionized. It is a sharp setback for unions seeking to organize janitors, nurses, clerical workers and other employees in those areas.
Labor organizers may encourage workers to join unions, the high court said, but the employers also are free to try to persuade them against unionizing. Employers do not lose this right simply because they take the government's money, the justices said.
The California law was triggered by a campaign to organize janitors in the Los Angeles area. Mike Garcia, a union leader, complained to lawmakers that some companies were using state money "to pay for aggressive anti-union tactics."
State lawmakers, led by Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), won approval of a bill to stop this practice. The measure, known as AB 1889, said state contractors and other private employers may not use state money "to assist, promote or deter union organizing."
The sponsors described this as the "nation's first state neutrality law" on labor organizing.
Related listings
-
Court puts limits on mentally ill defendants
Court Alerts 06/19/2008The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants with a history of mental illness do not always have the right to represent themselves, even if they have been judged competent to stand trial.The justices, by a 7-2 vote, said states can give ...
-
Court grants Routier limited DNA testing
Court Alerts 06/18/2008Darlie Routier, the Rowlett mother sent to death row after the 1996 stabbing deaths of her two young sons, has been granted a chance to prove her innocence through DNA testing.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ruled that Routier should...
-
Ex-Broadcom chief pleads not guilty
Court Alerts 06/17/2008Billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III pleaded not guilty Monday to federal criminal charges that he distributed drugs and that he led an accounting and securities fraud scheme while he headed Irvine, Calif.-based Broadcom Corp. Nicholas, 48, left the cou...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.